Poslof v. Martel et al
Lonnie Lee Poslof, Jr. |
Michael Martel, CDCR, Does 1-100, Daniel Paramo, Kathleen Allison, A. Canedo, Alka Aneja, Sharon Zamora, K. Yarick, T. Martello, Miles, Hollins, Ricardo Torres, O. Umugbe, Rastegari Keykhosrow and Diaz, |
3:2018cv00761 |
April 19, 2018 |
US District Court for the Southern District of California |
San Diego Office |
XX US, Outside State |
Michael M. Anello |
Andrew G. Schopler |
Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 91 ORDER Granting 90 Joint Motion to Dismiss. The Court GRANTS the parties' joint motion and DISMISSES this action in its entirety with prejudice. Each party will bear its own costs and fees. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the case. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 1/7/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (tcf) |
Filing 84 ORDER Granting 59 Defendant Rastegari's Motion to Dismiss. The Court grants Dr. Rastegari's motion to dismiss and dismisses Plaintiff's claims against Dr. Rastegari without leave to amend. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to terminate this action as to Dr. Rastegari as of the date this Order is filed. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 9/10/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc) |
Filing 82 ORDER Denying 64 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment without Prejudice; Denying as Moot 76 Defendant Umugbe's Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 8/29/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc) |
Filing 58 ORDER Denying 57 Plaintiff's Request for Order to Show Cause. The Court denies Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 6/12/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc) |
Filing 43 ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 24 31 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim and his failure-to-protect claim against Defendants Allison and Paramo with prejudi ce. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Diaz without prejudice. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim against Defendant Umugbe, in so far as it arises out of Dr. Umugbe's allegedly inadequate psychiatric care, without prejudice. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint on or before 6/30/2019. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 5/7/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc) |
Filing 22 ORDER (1) Dismissing Certain Defendants and Claims, (2) Denying 20 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and (3) Directing U.S. Marshal to Effect Service of Third Amended Complaint Upon Remaining Defendants Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) a nd Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). The Court dismisses Defendants Martel, CDCR, Aneja, Zamora, Yarick, Martello, Miles, and Hollins based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim against them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b) a nd/or for lack of proper joinder pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 18(a) and 20(a) and directs the Clerk of the Court to terminate them as parties to this case; Denies Plaintiff's Motion for TRO and or Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Directs the Clerk to issue a summons as to 18 Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint upon Defendants Paramo, Allison, Canedo, Torres, Umugbe, Rastegari, and Diaz and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each o f these Defendants. In addition, the Clerk will provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Order, a certified copy of the Court's 17 6/18/2018 Order Granting IFP, his 18 Third Amended Complaint, and the summons so that he may serve them upon each of the named Defendants. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 9/19/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (Certified Copy to USM) (rmc) |
Filing 17 ORDER (1) Granting 2 , 14 Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and to Strike Error; (2) Denying 16 Motion to Appoint Counsel; and (3) Dismissing Second Amended Complaint for Failing to State a Claim Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Court directs the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect from Plaintiff's prison trust account the $350 filing fee owed in this case by garnishing monthly payments from his account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month's income and forwarding those payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court directs the Clerk of th e Court to serve a copy of this Order on Scott Kernan, Secretary, CDCR; dismisses Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 12) based on his failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 19 15(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1); and grants Plaintiff 45 days leave from the date of this Order in which to file a Third Amended Complaint which cures the deficiencies of pleading his RJD claims only. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 6/18/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cc: Secretary CDCR)(rmc) |
Filing 7 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/18/18 ORDERING CASE TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. (Plummer, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 4/19/2018.] |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.